Why I Stopped Using Some Experts

INFORMATION FOR NEW LNCs

IT'S ALL FREE!

LNCtips.com: Why I Stopped Using Some Experts


I've worked with hundreds of experts.  I have found most of them to be intelligent, knowledgeable, and helpful to my cases.  However, even when experts exhibit those attributes, I have stopped using some of them for future cases. The reasons may seem mundane, but I won't recommend an expert to my attorneys when the expert does certain things.

I have stopped using some experts because they were not available during normal business hours.  I get it - experts put their patients first.  However, if an expert agrees to review a legal case for a law firm, that law firm is the expert's "patient" for the life of the case.  For that reason, the expert should set time aside for conferences and occasional impromptu communication during normal working hours, just as he or she would for a patient.  I once used a physician expert who was only available to talk on Saturdays from 10 a.m. to noon. I only used him one time because his hours were so restrictive that it was impossible to communicate adequately with him.

I also have stopped using experts when they become too much of a hassle to use.  For example, I stopped using a physiatrist expert because his secretary was overprotective of him, making it difficult to communicate with him.  The secretary screened all of the expert's emails and telephone messages, and she decided which were important enough for the expert to read.  Emails and phone messages from others in the law firm or me went to the bottom of the barrel.  When I finally received a call back, I discussed the secretary's behavior with the expert, but his response was that she just had his best interests in mind.  I stopped using him after that phone call.

Expert greed is another reason why I have stopped using some experts. I don't like it when experts insist on getting a check prior to reviewing medical records.  I'm not talking about a retainer, the check that accompanies the first set of medical records.  I have no problem with a retainer.  I'm also not talking about invoices, the bills that experts generate after medical record reviews. I have no problem with invoices either; experts deserve to be paid for the time they've spent reviewing records.  I'm talking about experts who expect me to send them a check before they'll review subsequent records throughout the case.  For example, I once worked with a nursing expert who required a hefty retainer, which the firm paid.  Two months later, we wanted to send her an additional 100 pages of records.  We thought that the retainer would cover her fees or that she would invoice us after her record review.  However, before she would accept the records, the firm had to pay her $250, the equivalent of two hours work.  Three months after that, she wanted another $250 before she would review an additional 10 pages of records.  Since I had reviewed the 10 pages myself, I was sure that it wouldn't take her two hours to review them.  However, she insisted on getting a check in advance.  Requiring money up-front for subsequent review of medical records by experts is not a standard business practice.  The firm has never used her as an expert again.

A final reason that I have stopped using some experts is related to their attitude.  Experts, of course, must be knowledgeable in their field.  Occasionally, though, I have worked with experts who were so knowledgeable that they were arrogant; they had an overblown sense of their own importance.  For example, I once hired a cardiovascular surgery expert to review some medical records, and I scheduled a telephone conference to hear his review opinions.  Usually for the first scheduled telephone conference, both the attorney and I attend the conference together.  However, if either the attorney or I am unexpectedly tied up, one or the other of us speaks with the expert alone.  In the case with the cardiovascular expert, he refused to speak with me alone "because I was only the nurse, not the attorney."  The attorney, who had been held up at a deposition, blew his gasket when he heard what the expert had told me.  He called the expert and spoke with him about his review opinions.  At the end of the conversation, the attorney informed the expert that if he wasn't here, the expert should always talk to me.  The attorney also told the expert that juries could notice attitudes of arrogance and elitism.  We never used that expert again.

...Katy Jones